Matemáticas visuales y aprendizaje del siglo XXI: una revisión sistemática sobre innovación educativa y herramientas digitales
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63688/jrq1c284Palabras clave:
matemáticas visuales, aprendizaje significativo, innovación educativa, herramientas digitales, inteligencia artificialResumen
La enseñanza de las matemáticas enfrenta el desafío de incorporar estrategias innovadoras que permitan superar modelos tradicionales basados en la memorización y favorecer procesos de comprensión profunda. En este contexto, las matemáticas visuales representan una alternativa educativa que integra representaciones gráficas, recursos digitales, narrativas visuales e inteligencia artificial para fortalecer el aprendizaje significativo en el siglo XXI.
Se desarrolló una revisión sistemática de literatura con enfoque cualitativo y alcance descriptivo, siguiendo los lineamientos del modelo PRISMA 2020. Se analizaron publicaciones científicas entre los años 2022 y 2026 provenientes de bases de datos académicas como Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, ERIC y Google Scholar. Luego del proceso de identificación, cribado y elegibilidad, se seleccionaron 19 estudios para el análisis documental.
Los hallazgos evidenciaron que las estrategias basadas en visualización matemática, herramientas digitales, inteligencia artificial, modelos interactivos y narrativas audiovisuales favorecen la comprensión conceptual, el pensamiento espacial, la creatividad y la resolución de problemas. Asimismo, se identificó que la integración tecnológica requiere acompañamiento pedagógico y competencias digitales docentes.
Las matemáticas visuales constituyen una estrategia innovadora para transformar el aprendizaje matemático mediante experiencias más dinámicas, accesibles y significativas. La incorporación de recursos digitales y visuales representa una oportunidad para diseñar ambientes educativos acordes con las demandas del siglo XXI.
Referencias
Arcavi, A. (2023). The role of visual representations in mathematics learning and reasoning. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 55, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01489-5
Bell, S. (2022). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 95(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2022.2031527
Boaler, J., & Dweck, C. (2022). Mathematical mindsets and creative mathematical learning in contemporary education. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2056916
Bowen, G. A. (2023). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 23(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-01-2023-0005
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2022). What works and doesn’t work with instructional explanations: A meta-analysis of multimedia learning principles. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09635-8
Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel: A synthesis of over 2,100 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2023). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kong, S. C., & Abelson, H. (2023). Computational thinking education and digital transformation: Emerging trends and challenges. Computers & Education, 197, 104731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104731
Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., Di Martino, P., & Robutti, O. (2023). Research on mathematics education: Innovations, challenges and future directions. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 55, 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01474-y
Luckin, R. (2024). AI and education: Guidance for policy-makers and educators. Routledge.
Mayer, R. E. (2022). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894333
Newcombe, N. S. (2023). Spatial thinking in education: The importance of visual representations and spatial reasoning. Educational Psychology Review, 35, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09752-8
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). OECD Learning Compass 2030: A series of concept notes. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/
Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … McKenzie, J. E. (2022). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
Redecker, C. (2022). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/159770
Robin, B. R. (2022). The power of digital storytelling to support teaching and learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10054-4
Snyder, H. (2023). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 156, 113484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113484
Torraco, R. J. (2022). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 21(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843221105014
UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/technology
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Pareja Roblin, N. (2022). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in digital learning environments: New perspectives for education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70, 245–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10034-8
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2022). Understanding by design framework for improving student learning. ASCD.
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2023). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00389-5
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Darwin Fabricio Rivadeneira Gallardo, Javier Ismael Cevallos Culqui, Lorena Rivadeneira Gallardo, José Andrés Cifuentes Flores, Alexandra Guadalupe Ponce Gutiérrez (Autor/a)
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
